Pressure builds over bottled water
Towns around the U.S. fight firms that want to soak up a local resource.
By Moises Velasquez-Manoff | Staff writer of the Christian Science Monitor/ October 22, 2009 edition
Moises velasquez-manoff/The Christian Science Monitor
Protest art makes a play on the firm’s name.
SALIDA, Colo.
In many ways Salida, Colo., typifies the 21st-century Rocky Mountain town. Originally founded along a railroad line in the late 1800s, it’s now geared primarily toward tourism.
Among the red brick buildings of the historic center where ranchers, miners, and railroad workers once held sway, tourists now move between coffee shops, galleries, and outfitters. During warmer months, kayakers “surf” a man-made wave in the fast-flowing Arkansas River, which marks the edge of the downtown area.
For the better part of this year, Salida – population 5,400 – has also been the setting for a 21st century kind of battle – over water.
Here and there in windows and entryways are signs reading “Stop Nestlé” or “Nest-Leave.” They refer to a proposed project by Nestlé Waters North America, which hopes to pump water from a spring a half-hour north of here and sell it under its Arrowhead label.
Citing myriad concerns, a group of residents has objected vigorously. They worry about impacts to the watershed and to nearby wetlands. They say that climate change, predicted to further dry Colorado and the Southwest, warrants a precautionary approach to all things water-related. And, pointing to fights other communities have had with the company, they say they simply don’t want Nestlé as a neighbor.
Nestlé counters that these concerns are overblown. The company says: The amount of water it plans to withdraw is negligible; the project will bring many benefits – economic and otherwise – to the community; and the company, the largest water bottler in North America, is an upstanding corporate citizen.
In mid-August, after months of public hearings and expert testimony, the county finally gave approval to the project – but attached 44 conditions.
“We still feel that the decision to grant them the permit is not a wise decision,” says John Graham, president of the Chaffee Citizens for Sustainability (CCFS), which has led the opposition against the project. The group is weighing what to do next.
Nestlé is satisfied with the outcome, says Bruce Lauerman, a natural resources manager for the company. “We can, and will, comply with all the conditions.”
So what’s the big deal?
The springs in question are to the middle and east of the Upper Arkansas Valley. Boulders lie strewn about, carried to their current positions more than 10,000 years ago when ice dams blocking the Arkansas River breached, inundating the valley. Water from the spring now collects in clear pools. Trout flit beneath the silvery surface. Rafters occasionally float past on the turbid river, which marks the southern boundary of the property on which the springs are located.
Water seems to abound. Nestlé plans to pump 200 acre-feet per year, or enough water to flood 200 acres with one foot of water. That’s 1 to 2 percent of the aquifer recharge coming from a 50,000-acre watershed to the east, says Mr. Lauerman. “This is a safe, sustainable way to withdraw water. End of story.”
But many say the greater story – about a growing world population of more than 6.5 billion faced with a limited supply of fresh water – is, in fact, just beginning.
Experts not directly involved in the Chaffee County situation point to it as evidence of rising sensitivity to water issues everywhere. They cite a growing number of disagreements between communities and bottled-water firms around the US – in Maine, California, Florida, and Michigan, among other places – as evidence.
“There is a growing interest in water as a whole [and] growing scarcity in the Western United States,” says Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute in Oakland, Calif., a nonprofit that does research and policy analysis in the areas of environment and sustainable development. “And when people pay more attention, it sort of makes it harder to do the things [bottled water companies] used to do without any opposition.”
These companies have now become the focus of campaigns against bottled water in general. Organizations like Corporate Accountability International and the Environmental Working Group rail against bottled water for a number of reasons, the environmental impact of plastics among them. (Lauerman points to Nestlé’s new ecoshape bottles, which, he says, use 30 percent less plastic than most.) The groups also argue that consumption of bottled water – paying for something that’s already cheaply available – leads to neglect of municipal water infrastructure, to everyone’s detriment.
The US Conference of Mayors has urged cities to stop buying water and has called for an investigation into how much the industry costs taxpayers. (By one estimate, 40 percent of bottled water comes from municipal sources, not springs.)
All of this opposition has had some impact. San Francisco and Seattle, among other cities, have prohibited city offices from buying bottled water. Maine is now considering a penny-a-gallon bottled water tax. High-end restaurants in Los Angeles and New York have stopped serving bottled water, a once-easy moneymaker, to avoid “ungreen” reputations. And in August, Bundanoon, Australia – population 2,500 – became the first town in the world to prohibit the sale of bottled water. A proposed bottled-water operation prompted the all-out ban.
Deserved or not, Nestlé, whose brands focus primarily on spring water and not the easier-to-procure filtered water from other sources, has become a favorite target of the anti-bottled-water movement. There’s a website called Stop Nestle Waters.org, and a documentary called “For the Love of Water,” or FLOW, casts the company in an unfavorable light. Nestlé has responded to FLOW with its own video .
Lauerman attributes anti-Nestlé sentiment and court battles to its being the largest producer of foodstuffs in the world and the largest bottled-water company in North America. Big companies make big targets, he says. As for the resistance in Chaffee County, he calls it “emotional” and not based on fact.
Others have a different take.
“Citizens are better off rejecting the zoning right at the beginning rather than getting into long, expensive litigation,” says Jim Olson, an environmental attorney in Traverse City, Mich., who has fought Nestlé for more than nine years.
“The lesson learned is: Don’t let it start,” he says. Indeed, worried by the prospect of facing a deep-pocketed corporation in court, one of the conditions that Chaffee County mandated was that Nestlé establish a reimbursement fund to pay for any future litigation.
And there’s another detail in the agreement that strikes many as notable. In drought-prone Colorado, law dictates that anyone applying for a water permit must present an “augmentation plan.”
Nestlé, for example, will replace water it pumps with water leased from Aurora, a city 100 miles to the northeast. The city will redeposit an amount of water equal to what Nestlé withdraws into the upper Arkansas River. Chaffee County mandated that replacement water must come from other counties, or the water-permitting process reopens.
The county has guaranteed itself a net-zero water loss.
These laws can seem Byzantine, even anachronistic, to the outsider. Only earlier this year, for example, did Colorado legalize rainwater harvesting. Before that, it was technically illegal to catch water falling off one’s own roof.
But the assumption underlying these laws – that water is in limited supply – is the correct one, says Robert Glennon, author of “Unquenchable: America’s Water Crisis and What to Do About It.” Other states often allow “a limitless number of straws in the glass,” he says.
But in Colorado, if you can’t replace it, you can’t take it. “That’s exactly what I think we should do,” he says.
Editor’s note: For more articles about the environment, see the Monitor’s main environment page, which offers information on many environment topics. Also, check out our Bright Green blog archive and our RSS feed.
( More stories )
Comments
2. S. Sandlin | 10.22.09
It’s not the bottled-water industry that’s the threat but, rather, the unlimited and seemingly glorified reproduction of humans. Sooner or later there’s going to be a humongous decrease of people, whether by human option or by “mother nature’s” mandate remains to be seen.
3. Sue Rooney | 10.22.09
Nestle was trying to get a bottled water plant going at the doors of Seattle’s municipal watershed–143 square miles of completely protected land. They were not successful. I wrote to Nestle, challenging their proposal, and was politely given a list of all the “good things” Nestle does to protect the environment. The fact that it takes three liters of water to make one plastic bottle–which never degrades and ends up in the land or ocean food chain–was not one of their measurements of “corporate responsibility.” Every piece of plastic that has ever been produced and not recycled (which is most of it) is still existing in the environment. It’s working its way into every level of the food chain, land and ocean. Plastic never degrades. Bottled water is as much a plastic problem as it is a water problem.
4. Jim G. | 10.22.09
It is still amazing to me that the demand for bottled water is so high. As the recession continues, it’s hard to believe that demand won’t drop significantly.
5. Frank Pollock | 10.22.09
Here in CA we know Dr Gleick as an extremely active partisan, rather than head of some benign research group. Everything short of direct lobbying. The caliber of experts an author chooses can be so important. I have to question the impartiality of any piece that includes quotes from someone so mission oriented. “authorities” that raise questions about a story’s source material can be so detracting from the goal of a story.
6. Ben Erlandson | 10.23.09
“But in Colorado, if you can’t replace it, you can’t take it.” And in order to replace it, mustn’t one take it from somewhere else? And so the vicious cycle perpetuates.
7. Chrys Thorsen | 10.23.09
We’re rapidly moving towards an unsustainable human population. Some day Mother Earth is going to shrug and wipe out huge parts of the populace. And that might not be a bad thing…
8. Rigoberto Rojas | 10.23.09
Each State should allow water companies to bottle superior quality water for that particular State and in some drought stricken States and agreement should be written up by The Country so water rich States help share in the bottling water supply that we enjoy so much when is done healthy and correctly.
Sincerely, Us.
Hialeah, Florida.
10/23/2009 Friday, 11:25 A.M. EDT.
9. Jim Olson | 10.23.09
Thank you for bringing attention to the broader issues facing Colorado, the West, and North America. Beyond the questions of impacts and no net loss of water (such as augmentation - the idea that water infusions are proper as if streams were as fungible as grain), is the question “Who owns and controls the water?” In approving bottled water extraction and diversions for private sale of water, whether in bottles or larger containers or trucks, communities, states, and citizens must defend water as a public commons and public trust, free from private claims or subtle shifts in the law that place water sales on the same level or on par with uses of water in connection with its beneficial use or reasonable use with land, community or watershed. In each instance a bottled water project, like the one in Salida, Colorado, is approved, there could be an implicit decision that the severance, export, or sale of water has shifted from a privilege or permissible use of a public commons into what might be viewed as part the glass or bucket of private rights to use water. If this occurs, then NAFTA or other international trade agreements may make it difficult or impossible to restrict or prohibit water exports of larger quantities in the future when water becomes even more scarce.
10. Raydeo | 10.23.09
S. Sandlin’s comment hits it right on the head !
Finally, someone looks to the Root Cause of this, and virually all the other ‘Crisis’ issues we are now faced with. The Planet is like a lifeboat, and a boat can only provide for a limited number of inhabitants, and this Planet is beginning to resemble the Titanic…
If ever in history it was time to ‘control’ the population it is now. The Chinese saw this beast emerging years ago, and setup the one child per family sytem to try and ward off the disaster.
Sad to say, this country took the opposite approach…
11. Henry E. Nass /NYC | 10.23.09
I agree with S.Sandlin (above). Population growth on the planet is the underlying problem, to the one’s we’re are tackling day to day. Where agricultural food production, energy use, depletion of the ocean’s fisheries, even traffic congestion, as long as we don’t look to set a limit to population, we will continue to face new problems daily. We may think that we are smart enough to solve all our energy and materials with science and technology. But I don’t think we have even begun to look to being wise enough to make some choices, whether personally, or institutionally, to think realistically about the challenges of the growing number of us. One of the real concerns has to be that the population is too great at the old end of life, not the beginning and since we’re all growing in that direction, we don’t want to “go there” in our considerations. We should be finding more of a partner, in nature as our wise guide, not our competitor, is my opinion.
12. Albert Bregman | 10.23.09
I agree with S. Sandlin’s comment. The major challenge facing this planet is its huge overpopulation by humans. If we could cut the human population by 50%, we would need 50% less water and 50% less scarce resources such as petroleum and minerals. We would take 50% less habitat away from animals and wild plants We could have twice the food and living space per individual. We would generate half as much of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming.
The only country that has seriously tried to cut back its population is China, with its “one child per family” policy, and it has been severely criticized as “inhumane”. We’ll have to see how inhumane this policy looks in retrospect when, in thirty years time, millions of people are driven from their homes by the rising oceans, and dying in huge numbers in poor countries from food and water shortages and from excessive heat.
13. Jon | 10.25.09
And you call yourself a christan? Well first the crisis at hand is not overpopulation in anyway shape or form it is the corporation that creates this issues that again and again destroy ecosystems only for profit. They can not about you and I but for the bottom line they are accountable to the share holders. Instead of playing into the hands of our operssors please wake up inform yourself stop having such a closed world view.
Hey Albert guess what the world bank does? It lends out large amounts of US money to 3rd world contries at high interest rates.To help them of course. Then when they can’t pay it back because they were never supposed to they say well privitize your resources as a way to pay us back and stop all traiffs. Then corporations with no connection to the people or the culture own their water and other life supporting resources and have no cost to export their goods. But hey its their fault their in debt right? Who cares lets not let them have kids! Another one thats fun is global warming, http://www.petitionproject.org/. What do 31,478 scientists know right?
14. Emile’ J | 10.27.09
I also believe the human population causes a great strain on the planet. But I am curious, the folks that advocate “one child per family”, how many children do you have, and how many do they have? Just a thought…
15. marvin | 10.27.09
Nestle is trying to take control of our water resources in Maine. They come in to town unannounced for a minimum of 2 and 3 years before the public is made aware of the intent to extract our valuable and precious resource, water. In their most recent media blitzes (now including tv and radio adds in addition to their full page color newspaper adds)they say that they are good neighbors and that they believe in local control and obey local municipal ordinances. What they don’t say is that they wrote the first municipal large scale water extraction ordinance in Maine and since then have been making aggressive attempts at writing and/or influencing municipal ordinances in the towns of Shapleigh and Wells. Local control seems to suit them as long as the rules suit their needs. If not look out! The town of Fryeburg and Kingfield spent years in court with Nestle and lost this year due to a weakness’ in the towns zoning and comprehensive plans. Activists around the state have been contacted in various ways by the Nestle lawyers and lobbyists in apparent atempts to intimidate the natives:) Sorry didn’t work in Shapleigh and Newfield. The citizens in these towns stood up and took control of their own towns by passing local self governance ordinances that give the townspeople the say of what happens to their resources in town. The people choose yes or no. In this case the answer was a resounding NO! Nestle removed it’s 23 test and monitoring wells and left town. Perhaps there is a lesson here for some folks that are still trying to pass regulatory ordinances that eventually permit water extraction. It seems to me you can go the regulatory route and spend years and millions in court as they did in Michigan or you can pass local self governance ordinaces in a matter of months and tell them you are going to keep your water. Shapleigh citizens found out about the 23 wells that had been bored in the spring of 2008 and had them all removed by July of 2009. No court fees no long legal battles. Food for thought. Good luck Salida
16. Marian | 10.28.09
I am so tired of hearing that there are too many people on earth. We have one child. But I think people are entitled to have more if they like. Read Hope’s Edge where Frances Moore Lappe talks about the myths of scarcity. She doesn’t deny that resources like water are scarce. Rather, we humans ignore the resources that can help us solve our problems; we also waste food, water, oil, money etc. rather than distribute them equitably. I live in Massachusetts where we do not have a water problem, but we use a third of what the average household (2.2 persons) in the state uses. I’ve seen people on TV in Las Vegas refuse to give up weekly waterings of their lawns - this in the desert! During the drought in Georgia it was the same. I think before we start wishing that a portion of the human race vanish, we start thinking about how we can make sure there’s enough to go around and that everyone have at least what they need to survive.
17. StopNestleWaters.org | 10.29.09
Nestle Quote:
“Lauerman attributes anti-Nestlé sentiment and court battles to its being the largest producer of foodstuffs in the world and the largest bottled-water company in North America. Big companies make big targets, he says. As for the resistance in Chaffee County, he calls it “emotional” and not based on fact.”
Lauerman can attribute the anti-Nestle sentiment to phases of the moon, but the reality is the company has not been a good corporate neighbor in many of the small rural towns it’s gone to, and their (deservedly) paying the price for their predatory, divisive tactics.
They sued the tiny town of Fryeburg (ME) five times (one suit, four appeals) before they finally found the legal loophole they needed to force the town to permit their 24/7 truck loading station in a residentially zoned area.
The long nightmare in Michigan - where Nestle clearly did damage a watershed (a judge agreed) - has become widely known, yet the company continues to assert they’ve never damaged aquifers or watersheds.
The legal reality doesn’t square with the corporate PR, and I know - given Nestle’s “shrewdness with the truth” in other places - whom I trust.
In my rural area, Nestle attempted to subpoena the private financial records of opponents to their proposed plant - a move clearly intended to intimidate.
I could go on and on (and I do on my Nestle-related blog), but I think it’s clear that Lauerman’s assertion that poor Nestle is the victim of overwrought activists is another load of corporate PR.
They’re a predatory company (both in their approach to rural areas and even in their still-boycotted baby formula division), and they’ve earned whatever scrutiny and opposition they encounter.
18. Gary Chamberlain | 11.08.09
Nestle has tried and failed to secure water rights in several small communities in the Seattle area. Citizens realizing the the so-called “benefits” of the company are not worth the loss of precious water. When citizens “segregate” themselves from public water sources by buying bottled water, not only are they wasting their money, they are drawing support away from the repairs and upgrades necessary for the public water which most, especially poor and marginal communities, depend upon. Nestle produceses a totally unnecessary product in bottled water (except in emergencies). Before 1979 there was no bottled water in the US. Let’s ban bottled water from all public buildings and even cities.
For more take a look at my book, Troubled Waters. And Peter Gleick is one of the most respected sources on the topic of water, to answer the reader who wrote that he is biased.
19. Joseph Thomas | 11.10.09
WOW , the Nestle issue sure has caused an uproar . I think ( hope ) in time the demand for bottled water will wane and Nestle will go home . I have been visiting the Salida area since 1994 and I really fell in love with it . Sure I wish there was no Walmart , Mcdonalds , Burger King and now Starbucks and so on , but the reality is, this is 2009 and big business has invaded just about every piece of paradise . So sad . You know they say ” ignorance is bliss ” , well if I ignore all the bad that’ s going on and just enjoy Salida for what it is , I am as happy as I will ever be .
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
1. Twitter Trackbacks for Pressure builds over bottled water | csmonitor.com [csmonitor.com] on Topsy.com | 10.22.09
5. Christian Science Monitor Explores Nestle Issue in Salida (CO), Nestle Can’t Be Happy | Stop Nestle Waters | 10.29.09
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Diane McCarter | 10.22.09
Thank you for publishing this article. The same thing is happening here in Flagstaff, AZ. Nestle wants to pump from the Hopi (and holy) Springs here. It is extraordinarily dry here and one of the driest “monsoon” seasons in recorded history here. Nestle had the greed and audacity to offer the city a very small amount to pump our precious and scant resource. The city turned it down, but I have heard that it isn’t over and Nestle will keep at it until they can pump precious life from us in these sacred lands.
They need to be stopped.